| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
| Cc: | Hans-Jürgen Schönig <postgres(at)cybertec(dot)at>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Two-phase commit for 8.1 |
| Date: | 2005-01-23 15:13:37 |
| Message-ID: | 20050123151337.GD4406@dcc.uchile.cl |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 01:37:30PM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> As the patch gets more attention, I'm sure more issues will come up.
I see the changes to the lock manager are huge. Can you explain what's
the idea behind those? Do you release the locks and then reacquire
them, or do you reassign them to a pseudo process? Are there
possibilities of deadlock somewhere?
--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[(at)]dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>)
Thou shalt study thy libraries and strive not to reinvent them without
cause, that thy code may be short and readable and thy days pleasant
and productive. (7th Commandment for C Programmers)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Treat | 2005-01-23 15:36:50 | Re: 8.1 development cycle (was a couple of other threads |
| Previous Message | Arnold.Zhu | 2005-01-23 12:29:13 | Re: can plpgsql returns more flexibe value ? |